The present invention is related to a multiple projector system. In this system multiple projectors are controlled and coordinated to provide a large display region such as a wall display. In such a display the goal is to provide a seamless image. However, in certain areas there is an overlap region where two projectors contribute light output to the same portion of the display surface. Unfortunately the combination from two projectors in this overlap region is additive and results in a brighter region with color differences. The overlap region is thus a visible band in the overall displayed image.
In order to minimize the visual band that occurs from the overlap region, a number of techniques have been proposed to “blend” the image to reduce the visual differences from one region to another. A simple blending method would output pixels in the overlapping edge regions of projector A and B at only 50% of their source brightness. Or, similarly, another simple method would have the pixels in the overlapping edge region of projector A be set to black (0% brightness) and pixels from overlapping edge region of projector B be left unchanged. Either method might conclude that the additive output will equate with 100% source brightness on the display surface.
However, this assumption incorrectly simplifies conditions that exist with actual projectors. With such an approach, boundaries between non-overlapped and overlapped regions (at the left or right edges) require perfect alignment or results are visible as bright seams or gaps. Also, the extra light output by a single projector, even if emitting black, can affect the color blending enough to notice the edge boundaries. Device light output levels are seldom identical and so the 50%/50% approach cannot ensure success. Better blending is required to smoothly transition among non-overlapping and overlapping regions.
One better technique is to gradually reduce the output brightness for each projector pixel in the overlapping region in a reciprocal fashion. The brightness level of one projector gradual diminishes while the brightness of the other increases across the overlapping region. Each individual projector therefore contributes maximum brightness at its inside edge, equivalent to the non-overlapping regions nearest said edge, and contributes minimum brightness at its outside edge, furthest overlapped into the opposite projector at the boundary to the opposite projector's non-overlapped region. For example, pixels at the inside edges of the overlapping region are output at 100% brightness, while pixels at the outside edges are output at 0% brightness. This ensures that at any point between the left and right edges, exactly 100% brightness will be achieved through a combination of the brightness of projector A plus the brightness of projector B. Since each logical pixel in the overlap region has some brightness value from either projector A or B, and no logical pixel contributes more than 100% brightness, there should be no seams or gaps.
Again, in actual practice, this better but still simple technique results in some visual bands or gaps in the image. Thus, in practice, the projectors are further adjusted using different blending formulas until the overall image looks fairly uniform. The terms “function,” formula,” and “algorithm” are used interchangeably herein to describe any method that blends or smoothes the overlap region formed between two projected images. As will be appreciated, there are an infinite number of blending formulas that can be used. But, there was no method available to determine the best formula for a particular situation, i.e., a particular set of projectors. Commonly assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/501,162, filed Jul. 10, 2009, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, addressed the problem of determining the best formula for a particular situation.
Our prior work was focused only on horizontal or vertical strips of projector configurations such as one row or column with two projectors (1×2), one row or column with three projectors (1×3), up to one row or column with four projectors (1×4). This worked well but the aspect ratio of such configurations was towards the panoramic and did not match the aspect ratio of most common media formats. With recent work to add more projectors (up to eight) to a single system we needed a new blending approach that would allow projector configurations such as two rows and two columns with two projectors stacked in each of the two columns (2×2), two rows and three columns with two projectors stacked in each of the three columns (2×3), and two rows and four columns with two projectors stacked in each of the four columns (2×4). These configurations create a greater challenge than the previous system that only had to blend the output between two projectors. These new configurations required a blending approach that would blend up to four projectors in a single overlap region.